How
Can One Overturn the Programming of a Child Against a Parent?

Ludwig.F. Lowenstein Ph.D

Southern England Psychological Services

2005

Abstract

What will follow will in some cases make a considerable amount
of sense. It will consist of viewing the specific approach to dealing
with the problem with some concern since emotional factors come
into play which are not typically used in any therapeutic approaches
otherwise. There are several ingredients necessary in order to reverse
parental alienation, or what is often called Parental Alienation
Syndrome (PAS). We will use one or the other of these terms interchangeably
as there is still some uncertainty as to whether the syndrome, which
has not yet been accepted by the American Psychological Association,
is relevant. Certainly, parental alienation does occur and has been
accepted.

How Can One Overturn the Programming of a Child Against the Parent?

The ingredients necessary for the therapist to have are: determination,
resilience, frustration, resourcefulness and single mindedness.
This is the only way that parental alienation can be reversed.

Few expert witnesses, be they psychiatrists or psychologists,
take on cases such as parental alienation. This is because the methods
which often need to be employed for overturning a child’s
animosity towards an alienated parent are strewn with dangers! It
provides a minefield of visible and hidden dangers to the therapist
to deal with such problems.

The chief dangers are the child and the alienator, who are opposed
to the efforts of the therapist and will do almost anything and
everything to sabotage the efforts of the therapist. They attend
mediation sessions and assessment sessions merely because it has
been ordered by the Court. They will go so far as to discredit the
Expert and the manner in which he works in order to seek to change
the thinking and behaviour of the alienated child. Whatever happens,
one side or the other will be critical of the therapist. Behind
the main antagonists, and opposed to the efforts of the parental
alienation therapist, are legions of family members on the alienators
side, Solicitors, even Guardians ad Litem who are frequently very
child-centred. The Court itself may also believe totally what the
child has to say about the alienated parent.

The Court and the thinking of others is likely to be as follows:
“Why would a child say such things about her father or mother
if it were not true?” In this of course they are totally wrong
in their thinking, unless such views can be confirmed by other,
truly independent sources. The therapist is in the middle, attempting
to discover three important aspects:

Are the allegations of abuse about a parent true, false or
exaggerated?

If untrue, and only if untrue, can the thinking and behaviour
of the alienated child be reversed? The alienator is unlikely
to change in their views towards the programmed parent. Hence
work with the alienator is not likely to bear much success as
many have found.

If the allegations against the alienated parent are true such
as when true sexual, emotional or physical abuse has occurred
then the Expert witness therapist should not be involved further,
except under very specific circumstances.

Before commencing on how the present psychologist works and seeks
to overturn the true effect of parental alienation we must consider
the following:

Why does the ‘programmer’ carry out the process
of alienation?

What are the psychological aspects involved in knowing that
parental alienation has been carried out by the ‘programmer’
and what are its effects on the child?

What therapy can be used to overcome the effects of parental
alienation?

To follow an illustration of rational emotive therapeutic
approaches via a clinical case.

1. Why does the alienator programme a child against the
other parent?

A parent who instigates accusations against another parent, for
example, accusing the alienated parent as having abused a child
sexually, physically or emotionally, are sometimes correct in this
declaration. More often than not such accusations or allegations
are wrong. Their allegations are frequently based on hostility towards
a former partner. This can lead to one of two pathological reactions:

The accuser believes what he/she is assuming to be correct.
That is he/she are deluded in their thinking or dangerously
paranoid.

The accuser does not believe in the accusations that he/she
are making but makes them nevertheless out of conscious hostility
and the seeking for vengeance against a former partner.

In both cases, acrimony and hostility are the basis for such false
accusations. There is even a middle position between these two extremes.
Let me illustrate this by an actual conversation I have had with
an alienating mother who could be said to be ‘stretching the
truth’ of ‘insinuating the worst scenario’:

Dr. L: “So you think your daughter does
not want to be with her father because he once made her go to
bed with him?”

Mother: “Yes, I don’t think a father
should ask a daughter to come into bed with him not at the age
of 10.”

Dr. L: “What do you think happened when
the daughter got into bed with her father?”

Mother: “I really don’t know, but
I don’t think….Do you think it is appropriate?”

Dr. L: “I’m asking you what you
think about it. Never mind what I think about it.If you really
do want to know, I don’t think or see anything personally
wrong with a child getting into bed with her father as indeed
with her mother, providing they are having a cuddle and nothing
more.”

Mother: “Well I think it is totally wrong
especially if the child does not want this.”

Dr. L: “I do agree that if the child
does not want to be in bed with her father he should not insist
on it. You obviously believe the child did not want this and father
did want her to get into bed with him.”

Mother: “Yes, and I don’t think
it’s right, and goodness knows what could have happened
or perhaps did happen.”

Dr. L: “You think perhaps she was sexually
abused in some way by being touched?”

Mother: “I don’t know but I wouldn’t
put it past him. Even if it didn’t happen it could have
happened.”

Dr. L: “So you think your former partner
might be a sexual abuser of his daughter?”

Mother: “I wouldn’t go so far as
that. I don’t really think he would do that, but you never
can tell.”

As one may note no precise accusations have been made but “insinuations”
are often sufficient for a claim of this kind to stick and the need
for further investigations to be carried out in relation to it.
It is often the accused who will need to prove innocence, instead
of one needing to prove his guilt.

Paranoid ideations are infections. A deluded parent, or one filled
consciously with hate for the former partner, can lead to an effort
by that parent (the alienator) to control a child totally and to
inculcate certain ideas that the former partner and parent is somehow
dangerous to the child. This could lead to the next development
which is that the alienated parent may eventually be considered
repulsive and worthy of denigration and rejection. Children will
often act this hatred out for a parent, especially when the ‘programmer’
(the alienator) is present. The child will seek to please that parent
by taking on, or accepting the views of the alienating parent.

Paranoid ideation is illustrated when the child states that the
father or mother have somehow, in general terms, done the wrong
things, or been evil or lied etc. Here the child is “parroting”
what the mother or father has said about the alienated parent. This
is because the child has identified with the alienator and custodial
parent, and the alienated parent eventually becomes the ‘scapegoat’
for all and any wrongs ever perpetrated against the alienator and
‘ipso facto’ those wrongs which the child has felt done
to him/her. This is in contrast with the programming parent who
is idealised by the child as being both ‘all good’ as
well as ‘all powerful’.

This occurs because a child feels, having lost one parent due
to the acrimony of separation and brain-washing, there is a danger
of losing the other parent as well. This fear is of a traumatic
nature, leading to deep insecurity. The alienator senses this insecurity
and works on the child making it clear that “I am all you
have now…….Forget about your father/mother. They are
no longer to be relied on.”

2. How does the ‘programmer’ work and what effect
does this have on the child?

There are a number of ways in which psychological aspects come
into play in the alienation process. Among the methods which will
be discussed are: reaction formation, identifying with the aggressor
and the strong person i.e. the custodial parent, identifying with
an assumed ideal or perfect parent, a way of releasing hostility,
and the child identifying with the power of the alienator.

The reaction formation

When deep love formally felt for a parent is turned to hatred
for purposes of disguising that love, this is not true rejection.
True rejection is being indifferent to the parent, not hating
that parent. Where there is hate there has been love and love
can be rekindled. Alienated children do not so much love the
alienator but fear losing the alienator by showing affection
towards the alienated parent.

Identifying with the aggressor

Here the child backs the more powerful parent, the one who
has custody of the child, and the one who is likely to be present
more often than the alienated parent. The weak or alienated
parent has been sidelined totally or partly. This is based on
fear of a strong alienator.

Identifying with an idealised or perfect parent

Children who have been alienated cling desperately to the
alienator. A common experience of a young child is “My
mother/father is perfect.\ I don’t need a ather/mother.\
My mother/father is perfect in every way.” This is especially
when the alienating parent vilifies the alienated parent regularly,
directly or more subtly, making that parent appear to be despicable
to the child. Alienators cannot tolerate “ambivalence”.
One parent has to be always good and the other perfectly evil.

Releasing hostility

Most individuals have reasons for feeling hostile at different
times. This is due to accumulated rage from other sources for
which the alienated parent often becomes a ready target. The
child therefore develops the same power as the alienator who
can attack the alienated parent with impunity. The child will
do this as well both verbally, physically and by rejecting.

The child identifies with the power of the alienator

Hence the child feels free to attack and humiliate a father/mother
(depending on who the alienated person is). They will call them
horrible names, spit at them, and even strike them, knowing
they have the protection of the alienator or anyone who is present
at this particular interview. The alienated parent is helpless
to counteract this except by talking kindly and often with tears
in their eyes.

3. What to do to do reverse alienation?

There are a number of ways of attempting to reverse the process
of alienation.

Firstly it is to appeal to the child’s intelligence or rational
thinking.

This could be difficult for the reasons already quoted. Such
children are often so brain-washed that there rational thinking
is totally at odds with reality.

Encouraging a child to confront the alienator

This is difficult to achieve due to the likelihood of the child
identifying with the ‘programmer’ (alienator) and
therefore fearing what the ‘programmer’ will do if
the child is friendly towards the alienated parent.

Investigating specifics of pejorative remarks made by the alienated
parent

One must be cautious about the remarks made by the child about
the alienated parent. Such remarks made as ‘father is nasty,
evil, stupid, abuses me etc. etc.’. This will be illustrated
in the last section

Making the child realise father loves him/her

This can only be done eventually when father/mother and child
are together. This is sometimes difficult to achieve especially
when through the courts or some other source access to the child
is barred to the Expert Witness and to seeing the child and the
alienated parent together.

To break down absurd or frivolous criticisms towards the alienated
parent.

It is vital to spend as much time as possible initially listening
to the child’s complaints about the alienated parent before
“hammering home” the absurdities, unfairness and cruelty
the child is expressing. This includes phrases like, “Father
is always bribing me to be with him”. This is an example
of a ‘borrowed scenario’ since mother could well have
used this term to describe the alienated parent who gives the
child presents or money. If that parent did not give the child
presents or money the borrowed scenario from the mother could
well be “He is such a mean man…..never gives me anything”.

It is important to explain to the child how frivolous, absurd
statements, and borrowed scenarios come about and how it must
be “hammered home” as originating not with the child,
but with the alienator. This will not always be accepted by the
child as the child thinks he is thinking “independently”
of the alienator.

The alienated child lacks ambivalence towards the alienating
parent or the alienated parent. The alienating parent is ‘all
good’ while the other is ‘all evil’. There is
not one good thing about the non-custodial parent and not one
bad thing about the ‘programming parent’ in the child’s
mind.

The term “independent thinking phenomenon” coined
by Gardner is also of vital importance. Children must be shown
how they have been alienated in thought and behaviour against
the targeted parent by the programmer. Such children then consider
such thoughts and behaviours as originating in their own thinking
rather than originating from the alienator. They fail to understand
that because of the alienator such ideas are in their minds. Children
who are directly or individually being programmed, cannot admit
this. Firstly they do not want to blame the programmer to whom
they appear to be “devoted”. They will claim the alienating
thinking and behaviour is based on their own independent thinking
rather than emanating from the alienated parent. This is a delusion
and hence difficult to nullify strictly by rational methods. This
is why in the following section emotional approaches will be used
in combination with rational methods.

4. How can rational emotive responses and methods be used to combat
parental alienation (A case illustration)

The present author has found it useful in a number of cases to
combine vigorous and dramatic emotional responses with rational
procedures. This has at least produced a breakthrough when the child
who has had little or no contact with an alienated parent will,
at least during the discourse within the therapeutic setting, re-enact
a warmer relationship with the alienated parent. Unfortunately,
very often the child will return to the custodial parent who will
re-use any and all programming methods to reverse this tendency.
It does however, indicate how even brief therapeutic approaches
of 6-10 sessions can, for a time at least, change the child’s
thinking, until the child returns to the programming and custodial
parent. The child should be seen in combination with the alienated
parent whenever possible. It may be the very first time for a considerable
period that both have been in the same room. The therapist at first
sits between the two and later when some contact occurs, such as
eye contact, the therapist will sit opposite the two. Still later,
when some progress has been made via interaction verbally and otherwise
between the child and the alienated parent, the psychologist briefly
leaves the room and gradually extends the periods of absence. It
will be noted that the psychologist becomes from time to time emotional
to bring the child into reality thinking. The language tends to
be ‘down to earth’, firm, rigorous and meaningful. The
main objective is to make an impact on the brain-washed child, however
difficult this may be.

5. Case illustration

This will be a summary of a number of sessions carried out with
a child and his/her father. When collected the child very frequently
clutched the alienator tightly. The child eventually went with the
psychologist. Initially, the child entered the room hesitantly,
fearing to leave the alienator. The father was waiting in the room
while the child was being brought in by the psychologist to be with
the father for the first time. The child on the whole tended to
avert her eyes so that no contact could be established. The father
in the meantime looked at the child somewhat despondently but greeted
the child in a friendly and caring manner. Frequently the father
would remind the child of happy times together. This was reinforced
by pictures or videos which had been brought along by the alienated
parent to demonstrate how actually the alienated child behaved in
the past when she was with her father. The dialogue went as follows:

Psychologist: “This is the first time
that you and your father have been together for some time hasn’t
it?”

Child: Does not answer

Psychologist: “I would like you to speak
to me even if you don’t at the moment speak to your father.
This is the first time you have been in the same room with your
father for some considerable time isn’t it?”

Child: “It’s not because I want
to. I’m being made to do it.”

Psychologist: (speaking to the father) “Can
you remind (child’s name) of some of the happier times you
were together by showing her some pictures of the past, or maybe
some of the letters that she wrote to you before all this occurred.”

Father then showed the child some pictures, and videos. The
child averted her eyes in order not to look at these reminders
of the past and happy times.
Psychologist: “I would like you to look at those pictures
even if you don’t look at your father so that you can
see how things were in the past and why things have gone wrong
in the meantime and this we will discuss later.”

The child then turned her eyes to look at the pictures without
looking at the father.

Child: “I can’t remember these pictures
being taken. I was probably only pretending to be happy when I
was with my father. I have never really been happy with him at
all.”

Psychologist: “Well these pictures don’t
indicate this at all. You seem to be smiling and cuddling your
dad and generally showing signs of happiness. Can all this be
pretence?”

Child: “Yes. I was only pretending. The
only person I want to be with and love is my mother. She only
needs me and I only need her. I don’t need a father.”
Psychologist: “Don’t you think your father loves you
and deserves for you to be nice to him when he always tries to
be nice to you. I believe be tries to telephone you regularly
but you don’t want to speak to him and hang up on him. Is
that right?”

Child: “Yes. I don’t want to speak
to him. I don’t want anything to do with him any more.”

Psychologist: “Why is that? What are the
reasons you have? I want specific answers why you don’t
want any contact with your father. I don’t want general
remarks like ‘I don’t like him’ or ‘He
is horrible to me’. I want to know exactly what he does
wrong in your eyes to make you wish to reject a loving father
who cares for you.”

Child: “I can’t think of anything
now but he always tries to make me go to places I don’t
want to go to and he sometimes asks me to come into the bed with
him. I don’t like that.”

Psychologist: “And what else?”

Child: “He shows me off to other people
and tells them how clever I am and I hate that. Also he always
tells me what to do and makes me eat things I don’t want
to eat. He makes me go on holiday with him and do things I don’t
like doing. He makes me sleep on a dirty bed which he has in his
house.”

Psychologist: “Is there anything else?”

Child: “There are many other things I
don’t like. I don’t even like being in the same room
and talking to him.”

Psychologist: “Again I want you to be
civil and nice to your father. OK? He is one of the few people
in this world who will give anything to help you in any way he
can, and I don’t think it’s fair that you should treat
him in this way. Do you?”

Child: Silent, says nothing at first. Then says:
“You don’t have to be with him like I have to be with
him. You don’t know what he is really like.”

Psychologist: “No I don’t really
know. I am not always with him as you were in the past. There
must be something good about your father that you enjoyed doing
with him.”

Child: Thinking, then says, “Nothing”.

Psychologist: “There must be something
that you remember that was good about him.”

Child: Thinking, then says, “He used to
make some nice meals for me when I was with him. Nothing else.
Anyway he could probably hit me from time to time if I was with
him.”

Psychologist: “Has he ever hit you?”

Child: Answers, “No”.

Psychologist: “Has he ever hit you?”

Child: Answers, “No”.

Psychologist: “What makes you think he
is going to hit you then ?”

Child: “He could hit me. He’s the
sort of person who would do that sort of thing.”

Psychologist: “What makes you say that?”

Child: “Look at him, he is big and strong
and he could hurt me.”

Psychologist: “But has he ever done so?”

Child: Reluctantly says “No”.

Psychologist: “If all these things you
dislike about him and how he is with you were changed would you
want to be with your dad after that?”

Child: “They could never be changed, and
anyway even if they were changed I wouldn’t want to be with
him.”

Psychologist: “So there is no sense in
changing anything is there?”

Child: “That’s right. I just don’t
want to be with him.”

It is clear from this interchange that there has been no breakthrough
of any kind while the father has been in the room demonstrating
pictures and videos from time to time to show how the past had
been and how happy the child had been in the father’s
company. It is now felt that a more emotional and direct approach
is required. This approach could well be criticised by those
who believe in pure therapeutic approaches of an orthodox nature.
The current psychologist however, has found that these methods
are totally ineffective with an alienated child who is obdurate
about wishing any contact with a former affectionate, caring
and loving parent. The psychologist from time to time therefore
uses fairly emotional and direct expressions, and also the tone
of his voice is louder to be emphatic to the child. Essentially
it is, a way of “shocking” the child to reality.

Psychologist: “Now I am going to say something
that has been on my mind for some time having read everything
you’ve said about your father, and having talked to your
father for a long period of time to find out how he feels about
you. I think you have treated him abominably. I think you have
been a horrible little girl. You have been too powerful for your
own good. What right have you got to reject a father who loves
you and cares for you and wants to do everything for you? You
should be ashamed of yourself. Don’t you feel guilty at
all about the way you have treated him all this time by not even
looking at him, by not talking to him, by hanging up on him on
the telephone? What has he really done that is so terrible for
you to behave in this way. I think you have virtually thrown your
father into the rubbish pile. If that is what you want to do then
so be it. I think your father is very, very caring or he would
not persist in wanting to be with you and wanting to have contact
with you, and wanting to show his love for you. I’ll tell
you one thing, many fathers would have given up and not bothered
any more, and not bothered even contacting you or wishing you
a happy birthday or a good Christmas, or providing for you financially.
Many fathers would have given up and just said to themselves that
this was the end and I am not having any more to do with this
child.”

At this point very frequently the child will develop thinking.
The emotional tone of the therapist or psychologist will in may
cases have ‘hit home.’ Sometimes one has to go on in
this vein using very emotional expressions and very ‘down
to earth’ expressions defending the father and drawing attention
to the good times that the child has had with the father which have
been substantiated by the pictures and other information provided
by the father. The important thing is not to accept what the child
says and how the child behaves since it is based on considerable
programming or brainwashing. It is vital to continue to try to break
through that barrier and very frequently one does break through.

Eventually in the case quoted above the child did look at the
father having seen the pictures and seen what an impact this had
on the father. It was then the chance of the father to talk to the
child in a caring, loving manner and remind the child of the good
times they had together in the past.

It is at this point that the psychologist would best leave the
room for a short period to provide an opportunity for interaction
between the two parties. It is surprising, very often, when the
psychologist returns after the first or second time being away from
the two how much closer the chairs are between the two parties and
how their eye contact has improved and how they are now speaking
to one another. Sometimes the child will even hold the parent’s
hand and even at a later stage give that alienated parent a cuddle
(often for the first time in years) or a sign of physical warmth.
Sometimes it takes a number of sessions of this kind before this
can be achieved. Powerful emotional language is vital in order to
break through the barrier that has occurred due to the alienation
process. The child then begins to think again for him/herself rather
than repeating the phrases and thoughts of the alienator.

It must also be said that the child feels safe interacting with
the alienated parent as mother is not present. Were mother in the
same room the child could be very reluctant to allow a breakthrough
of this kind. The child would be worrying about the views of the
alienator. The child would be concerned with the disapproval of
the alienating party if the child is too friendly to the alienated
party. It will take a considerable effort to redeem the damage that
has been done to the child over a period of months or years in which
the programmer (alienator) has ‘hammered home’ their
own prejudices and the child has identified with these prejudices.
Once the psychologist has completed the process of mediation there
is a need for a report to go to the Court. The Court will either
accept or fail to accept the views of the Expert Witness. In the
extreme it will ignore all the views by psychologist and retain
the situation as it was before with the child living with the custodial,
programming parent. It is hoped more and more courts in future will
in extreme and prolonged cases of programming consider the possibility
of a change of custody, at least for a period of time, so that the
alienated parent can have the opportunity of healing the wounds
of the past. Only time will tell what occurs in the future.